Honestly im perhaps telling too much about my off-line person as well. Which is something i would like to keep at least somewhat separate. Anyway that low teacher student ration is something i really like. Not on like it is effective, but it also makes you feel more secure and allows for genuine respect for the teacher. Sure as i noted i had to deal with my own share of terrible teachers and im only talking about teachers as teachers rather than what i thought about them as people, but that is what happens when you have to deal with humans. Obvious problem here is that you need a lot of teachers if you want to implement it on larger scale than what schools i know do.
Edited by Risa123 on Sep 3rd 2022 at 11:26:00 AM
I am not. Thank you.
[sighs]
I had some private epiphanies in the aftermath of that rant, about my goals and tools and work personality, so that was helpful at least.
Edited by Noaqiyeum on Sep 5th 2022 at 5:25:46 PM
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NOOne thing I do wonder about rather often is why the hell are university professors expected to teach classes of 80+ (usually more than 100) students. Are the students being older meant to make this easier or something, jumping from classes of 20 to around 4 to 5 times after high school that ain't exactly normal.
While I might have had lectures with that many students the actual classes/seminars at my university were around 12-20 people. Even a lecture group that large was generally for the mandatory modules that everyone on the course had to do.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranEdited by tclittle on Nov 4th 2022 at 12:06:50 PM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Okay, I couldn't find a place that might be better for this rant than this thread, but here goes: the alphabet is bullshit!
This is how people sing the alphabet song:
Ay, Bee, Cee, Dee, Eee, Eff, Gee,
Ache, Eye, Jay, Kay, Elemenopee (El, Em, En, Owe, Pee),
Queue Arr Ess,
Tee You Vee,
Doubleyou Ex,
Why and Zee.
But if English had any consistency, the letters would be pronounced like this:
Ay, Bee, Cee, Dee, Ey, Fee, Gee, Hee, Iy, Jee, Kee, Lee, Mee, Nee, Oy, Pee, Qee, Ree, See, Tee, Uy, Vee, Wee, Xee, Yee, Zee.
Given that most of them are shortened version of the Greek letters, with some other letters from different languages mixed in, consistency isn't really common.
Not to mention that the letters that are really similar in pronunciation tend to just cause confusion. Like, on the phone when someone is spelling stuff out. Did they just say B, D, P or T? Making them all the same would make that significantly worse.
You also have A and E being pronounced identically in there.
Edited by Zendervai on Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:09:09 AM
Okay, then they should all be different. Make it so that every vowel sound ends in y and every consonant sound ends in one of the vowels, evenly distributed among the vowels. But none of this "Doubleyou" nonsense.
And Ay and Ey would sound different.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Nov 22nd 2022 at 3:14:57 AM
The letter "W" gets its name because it's literally two "U"-letters.
Basically, originally you'd put two "U"-letters together if you wanted to make the "W" sound. IE, "Wood" might be spelled "Uuood".
Eventually they just made a simple that literally represented a pair of "U"-letters, a "Double U", if you will.
Leviticus 19:34I mean, there's a reason phonetic alphabets (also known as spelling alphabets)
exist.
Coming here following the conversation in the economics thread about compulsory non-subject modules/classes at university/college, so art classes when doing a science degree.
The whole thing just feels to me like infantilisation of people who should be at a point where they are owning their education and acting as the primary decision maker.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYeah, I can see good arguments for encouraging people to do some cross-curricular study, or straight-up requiring something that isn't directly degree related (if only because, e.g., there's still foundational courses to cover before moving on to later ones and there's only so many of them, so here's something else to fill out the timetable), but the level of 'you need to check off this, this, and this to be a well-rounded person' seems very... domineering? Like you're still not really in a position to make choices.
Although, I can't say 'you're always going to have to jump through a dozen ridiculous hoops to do the thing you're actually here to do' isn't a valuable life lesson, I do think it's also rather obvious before this point.
Of course, my opinion on degrees is that tertiary education is further specialisation following secondary education, which is already a more limited subset after a broad primary one, so I guess that's a major difference in perspective.
Well, I'd say what I got was well-rounded by default. Had to do English, maths, science, history, geography, RE (which really should just be a more general ethics thing but eh), languages, art, a big range of computer stuff beyond just 'how to use office programs', and some more practical design classes. Of those, the first three had to be carried on for actual qualifications (there was, at the time, a split between the required amount of science and one that took more time but went more in-depth on physics, chemistry, and biology as separate fields), and then it was 'pick more out of the remainder, along with some new classes only introduced at this level'. I remember business classes started then.
Then there was secondary education (now obligatory in some regard, although it could also be vocational training), which was more specialised and detailed but was still 'pick multiple subjects to study'.
And then degrees are more specialised still, but there was opportunity to do other courses in the process, not just focus one thing to the exclusion of all else (that's what a Master's was for). And extracurricular groups etc. That became a bit less common as it progressed and there were more subject-specific specialisations to do.
So, having a large knowledge base and exposure to lots of subjects, which becomes more specialised over time would be my answer.
I think I can call your education well-rounded. Now for my own answer.
First, I think well-rounded education involves both exact science and humanities. While having them as too separate categories is logical. Focusing on one and not the other does not seem wise if you ask me. Both are important in their own way.
Generally I would say the well-rounded education allows you to have a decent understanding of the modern world, that is admittedly a lot to ask for.
First history, you cannot understand present if you do not know the past. To be fair, I'm quite biased here since I like to learn about history.
I also believe that you should have at least some idea about all major sciences, really. If nothing else, it will drive home how little you know. Maybe then you will actually respect scientific authority instead of creating your own "theories".
I have to say that the whole idea of standardizing a well-rounded education seems... counter productive? Since part of the point surely is to diversify people's background so that they don't become cripplingly overspecialized in their own concentration, and that you don't end up with a highly homogenized professional community with no insight into other populations needs or experiences. You would want to require a certain number of credit hours outside of the major,yes, and then give students a wide range (hundreds of classes, if possible) of options for fulfilling the requirement.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Agreed. A well-rounded education isn't to make students Renaissance men who know everything; that is an impossible goal. Instead, it is to train them to be able to work together with people from different backgrounds.
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorowhttps://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/videos/20221202211456512/
Video is from NHK world, but it mentions the backstory of a Liberal Studies teacher in HK who decided to move to the UK since the NSL hampered what she can teach and not teach.
The ending (IIRC) mentions that some HK families who can afford it send their kids to live abroad to avoid the Beijing-based education system.

Fewer students per teacher would help a lot. If you just don't have time to learn how to adjust to each student's strengths and needs, the one-size-fits-all, if-you-don't-fit-just-try-harder curricular template becomes a necessity.
ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO